Rob, Hear, hear! Marriage is a difficult institution, something a lot of members of our younger set here in the U.S. don't seem to understand. Many of them think Marriage will be all sweetness and light and personal rewards, and when it isn't, instead of accepting the lumps that go with working it out they jump immediately to divorce, leaving the kids in the lurch. What they don't understand is the rewards that accompany the powerful bonds that grow between people who've gone through a lot of little heavens and hells together. In less than a month and a half I'll celebrate my 58th. I wouldn't trade my bonds for anything I can imagine in Heaven or earth. Which is one reason I grieve with you when I think that you've lost your own companion.

About marriage (didn't know the french word was used in english), let's put it that way:1) It is a tragedy for the human being that people do not understand the real meaning of sharing a life with somebody,in a word of fast food and fast cameras, the minimum disagreement or problems, people just conclude that the relation is wrong, wich obviously will remains the same with the next person. As we are basically consummers and people are disposable, throwaway merchandise as well, it is not surprising to see the incredible amount of divorces.

2)but it is a blessing for the wedding photographers: more quick divorces, more second, third marriage, so more "fake" weddings to shoot. And now that the weddingers have the new 40MP MFD pentax for cheap...what else to ask for?

Slobodan, Thanks. That includes four sons, four wonderful daughters-in-law, seventeen grandchildren, and three great-grands, two of whom haven't arrived yet.

Rob, I finally remembered to get out HCB's Scrapbook and look up "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare." The earlier picture in the book isn't the contact sheet, but it's his first crop. He says the picture "presented itself to him" with the lens blocked by a fence (which obviously is on the left) which he immediately eliminated from the first print. That's the other print they showed in the book, which is too tall and skinny since all he did was chop a chunk off the left side. The later crop that's always been printed since takes the tall, skinny version and crops an appropriate amount from the top and the bottom, restoring the aspect ratio to roughly 3 to 2 and producing excellent geometry in the result. You can still see a bit of the out-of-focus fence in the final version.

And that is why amateur photographers do what they to, for the love of it, not money. Amateur = origin from Latin amator ‘lover,’ from amare ‘to love.’

And to respond to Terence Donovan, if amateurs were having such difficult time finding the reason to photograph, they would be extinct by now.

In a broader sense, there are three basic human motivators: achievement, power (often coinciding with money), and social interaction (a version of which you would call external validation). Amateurs are mostly in the first (i.e., achievers) and third category (socializing in camera clubs, competitions, Flickr). Pros would be mostly in the second (money) and third (external validation through fame).

Russ, congrats on your 58th!

Russ

Yes, it sure is a bummer if you get to being single again. We met in school, in November ’54; she died in November ’08. We had 48 years of marriage – never imagined it wouldn’t be a matter of into the sunset together. More than once I have thought it would have been nice for us both to have hit a motorway bridge instead of the way it panned out.

You know, the memories and things that haunt the most are such simple ones – sitting in the morning sun on the terrace together, saying probably nothing, and having a coffee; myself in the office of an evening, just like now, calling out ‘how do you spell …’ and she, reading in the sitting room, would patiently give the reply. Dishes and kitchen utensils that won’t get used; crystal for this, that and the other sort of drink left in unopened sideboards; dust mocking me where there never was any before; songs we loved. And silence that was never painful. It doesn’t end, and anyone who tells you time heals all things simply hasn’t a clue. But what can you do? Bore and lose your friends – such as they are, those that still survive?

Slobodan

Regarding Terence Donovan, I think you are mistaken. Amateurs may be in love with photography, if they are advanced enough to get really involved, but they still don’t all know what to do with it and it shows so very much. They may be expert technicians – more so than many pros – but all that doesn’t give that momentum, that overpowering urge to work at something specific; I get the impression that it’s more a matter of having the wish to be a photographer than anything else. I imagine that that’s the reason so much Internet chat is about equipment, critiques, but seldom really about the nitty gritty of the thing, the soul: few have the material to toss around.

As I think I see it, the microstock boom encapsulates the entire ethic: all at once, anybody with the low price of admission can send in his shit and stand as good a chance of earning twenty cents as anybody else. Why do they bother? Because, as I wrote above, they have this wish to be a ‘photographer’ in the cast of whoever their pet hero might be. But with a friggin’ big safety net called the day-job. It matters not that they screw the hell out of their own heroes in the attempt. And boy, nobody had better dare mention that. If you do, then the stock (sorry, just a coincidence) reply is: why should pros have a divine right etc. etc. which is just a snow job to cover guilt and not a little shame.

Russ, congratulations not just on the anniversary-to-be, but on the strength of the dynasty! Well worth flying those jets to protect all that, regardless of what the softer ones of us may think...

Fred, yes, it is too easy to call it a day and throw out the good with the bad. And you know, though I owe my career to the 60s, I also see it as responsible for a hell of a lot of human disaster. (Not my career, the period.) I shall never forget listening to Suzi Quatro's r'n'r show on BBC years ago, where she quoted her mother saying that there is no such thing as free love: somebody always pays. Isn't that the truth!

Hell, we are getting somewhat blue on this show! Supposed to be about photographic style, I think... but then, how many artists, and I include snappers in that, ever live lives of utter joy? The blues comes with the job description.

"It's a funny thing, the more I practice the luckier I get." - Arnold Palmer

As a kid, I was a part of Arnie's Army, if only in spirit. It helped cement a love of the game and the hard work required to best enjoy it. I sort of feel the same way about Street photography. HC-B's acknowledgement that "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare" was luck belies the effort and hard slogging that was needed to be in the right place at the right time with the practiced knowledge of technique and instinct to capture the moment. Any luck I'm having with my images is the result of hundreds upon hundreds of hours on the street "practicing." I have a deep respect for anyone that works hard at Street or Documentary as it's a whole lot of effort for only an ephemeral chance for a result.

Regarding Terence Donovan, I think you are mistaken. Amateurs may be in love with photography, if they are advanced enough to get really involved, but they still don’t all know what to do with it and it shows so very much. They may be expert technicians – more so than many pros – but all that doesn’t give that momentum, that overpowering urge to work at something specific; I get the impression that it’s more a matter of having the wish to be a photographer than anything else. I imagine that that’s the reason so much Internet chat is about equipment, critiques, but seldom really about the nitty gritty of the thing, the soul: few have the material to toss around.

As I think I see it, the microstock boom encapsulates the entire ethic: all at once, anybody with the low price of admission can send in his shit and stand as good a chance of earning twenty cents as anybody else. Why do they bother? Because, as I wrote above, they have this wish to be a ‘photographer’ in the cast of whoever their pet hero might be. But with a friggin’ big safety net called the day-job. It matters not that they screw the hell out of their own heroes in the attempt. And boy, nobody had better dare mention that. If you do, then the stock (sorry, just a coincidence) reply is: why should pros have a divine right etc. etc. which is just a snow job to cover guilt and not a little shame.

;-)

Rob C

IMO, being an amateur in the noble way is the easiest path. 100% rewarding. You feel passion, you do an activity basically because you feel you have to do it, but there is no pressure, it is 100% flexible. If there is a pressure being an amateur it is because a secret wish to succeed, being recognized, stands somewhere in the thoughts. And when one succeed, he/she becomes a pro anyway. But normally there should have no pressure.I beleive that most amateurs in fact dream to become pros, and the microstock invasion is just an ilustration of that fame desire. If they could, they would do it.Thinking of Andy Warhol again about this "5 minutes of fame"...Pure amateurism in its noble way is very very rare, (at least observing the people I know in that case), there is generally a wish behind the mask.Amateur is, to me, a pro without balls or a person who has a lot of free time to spend in something. Many beautifull images come from there I must say.The volume of imagery produced today by serious amateurs is enormous, much bigger that what's produced by the professionals.That has consequences to a certain extend in the commercial rule game.A good pic is a 20cents pics etc...Being pro, also in the noble way, is not just about taking good pics, sharing in twitter or whatever and enjoy.In fact, it has nothing to do with all that stuff.

Being pro, also in the noble way, is not just about taking good pics, sharing in twitter or whatever and enjoy.In fact, it has nothing to do with all that stuff.

Again, Fred, you are right.

And anyone can see this by the fact that so few really really good pros have either the time, interest or wish to get online and write.

And not just that: try and find the website of the real David Bailey, the London fashion photographer of Bailey, Donovan and Duffy fame, and you will have done something that has evaded me since I got a computer. And I imagined I knew where to look!

It could be there is no such site – he doesn’t want or even need such a device; more, he probably prefers screens at every turn in his life. Why would he, or others of his ilk, the very ones that would interest (some of) us, bother?

That’s one reason I am grateful to the minority that fits that category that is willing to take the time; the other reason is that I love seeing good photography. We are fortunate, here, that some do bother.

Enjoyed your website link; two questions: do you have another site where there is an 'About Me' sort of section; how did you learn the art of invisibility? Few people, and mainly cats at that, seem to know you are working or are disturbed when they do.

I beleive that most amateurs in fact dream to become pros, and the microstock invasion is just an ilustration of that fame desire. If they could, they would do it.

Amateur is, to me, a pro without balls or a person who has a lot of free time to spend in something. Many beautifull images come from there I must say.

Fred, I think we need to get our definitions straight before we go too far into this subject. By definition a "pro" photographer is someone who makes his living by photographing. The term doesn't imply good work. It implies paying work. There are pros who make exceptional photographs. Rob's one of them. Then there are the others. You can walk down main street in nearly any American town and see the others. I don't know if the same thing's true in Spain, but I'd be willing to bet it is. I suspect one reason most portrait and wedding studios produce the same dreary cliches over and over again is that the same dreary cliches are what their clients want, because as far as their clients are concerned those dreary cliches are what they recognize as "wedding" photographs or "portraits." Cartier-Bresson made some of the best portraits I've ever seen. So did Walker Evans and Elliott Erwitt. But if their clients had been like the average U.S. client, they'd have been out of the portrait business in no time. The bottom line is that "professional" doesn't imply "good."

In the sixties I did professional work on the side for a couple years. I did weddings, portraits, the debutant's ball that finally convinced me I didn't want to continue that kind of work, etc. But I also did some stuff on speculation, hoping to make some money off it. I've posted a couple examples from a dance class I did on Saturdays over a fairly long period. I found I really disliked the standard work, but I liked the spec work. I'd do that again if the opportunity arose. At this point I'm proud to be an amateur, in the real meaning of the word.

I think you're right that free time, which I have lots of now that I'm really retired from both the Air Force and from software engineering, is important. But not always. I think of people like Elliott Erwitt who didn't have Cartier-Bresson's advantage of a family fortune. He was a professional on the jobs he did as a professional, but when the daily work was done he picked up his Leica and became an amateur in the finest sense of the word.

I guess the reason I'm posting this is that I'd love to see us stop the kind of crap I see all the time in magazines like Pop Photography: "Join our workshop -- mentored by the pros." What BS. In practically every issue of that magazine I see the "pros" take a reasonably good photograph, crop, dodge, burn, and otherwise degrade it. Sometimes they're right about the changes, but rarely. It's time to stop calling novice photographers "amateurs," and start calling them what they are: "novices." The "pros" in magazines like Pop Photography are all about equipment. As Rob pointed out, equipment completely misses the point.

Enjoyed your website link; two questions: do you have another site where there is an 'About Me' sort of section; how did you learn the art of invisibility? Few people, and mainly cats at that, seem to know you are working or are disturbed when they do.

Rob C

I assume that's for me. Glad you liked my shots. There's no "about me" page as I haven't decided yet which camp of photographer you and the other's have been discussing I fall into: the aspirational amateur, the budding professional or the pure of heart. The one thing I'm not though is someone obsessed with the equipment. I value my tools but they're just that, tools.

I'm sort of surprised about the question of invisibility. Isn't that one of the core competencies of a Street or Documentary photographer? Blend in, don't disrupt, observe. There's a very long story about how I've become invisible, or at least ignored in many, many situations which started when I was much younger. Of course, there are also practical techniques I use to get a close shot before the subject realises.

I assume that's for me. Glad you liked my shots. There's no "about me" page as I haven't decided yet which camp of photographer you and the other's have been discussing I fall into: the aspirational amateur, the budding professional or the pure of heart. The one thing I'm not though is someone obsessed with the equipment. I value my tools but they're just that, tools.

I'm sort of surprised about the question of invisibility. Isn't that one of the core competencies of a Street or Documentary photographer? Blend in, don't disrupt, observe. There's a very long story about how I've become invisible, or at least ignored in many, many situations which started when I was much younger. Of course, there are also practical techniques I use to get a close shot before the subject realises.

Jenn

Hi Jenn

Yes, ‘twas for you indeed, the post. It shouldn’t matter in the least about others here or anywhere else, for that matter, attempting to pigeonhole you. You are you.

I don’t do street – would probably like to but don’t have the stomach (bravery) to face, camera at my nose, people who really do look as if they’d make good pics exactly because that’s how they look: a Diane Arbus complex – fear of becoming – if you see what I mean. Perhaps being female is actually an advantage – might remove the implied threat that cameras often pose, along with the natural defensive reaction of attack. I don’t run fast any more – probably can’t run at all – no memory of the last time I did anything as rash or as fast. But, if I make it another four or so years, I may well have got to the other side of the line where people try to help me cross the street, even when all I am doing is taking a breather at the lights. Funny, people.

You have just put out the strongest tease of the day: I would love to know about your early metamorphose into invisibility, that’s precisely the sort of information this forum is very short on: gadgets, tweaks, photons and circles of confusion abound, but really interesting personal stuff is as rare as hen’s teeth, as they used to say in Scotland. I’m all for more of the human and less of the plastic and tin.

Fred, I think we need to get our definitions straight before we go too far into this subject. By definition a "pro" photographer is someone who makes his living by photographing. The term doesn't imply good work. It implies paying work. There are pros who make exceptional photographs. Rob's one of them. Then there are the others. You can walk down main street in nearly any American town and see the others. I don't know if the same thing's true in Spain, but I'd be willing to bet it is. I suspect one reason most portrait and wedding studios produce the same dreary cliches over and over again is that the same dreary cliches are what their clients want, because as far as their clients are concerned those dreary cliches are what they recognize as "wedding" photographs or "portraits." Cartier-Bresson made some of the best portraits I've ever seen. So did Walker Evans and Elliott Erwitt. But if their clients had been like the average U.S. client, they'd have been out of the portrait business in no time. The bottom line is that "professional" doesn't imply "good."

In the sixties I did professional work on the side for a couple years. I did weddings, portraits, the debutant's ball that finally convinced me I didn't want to continue that kind of work, etc. But I also did some stuff on speculation, hoping to make some money off it. I've posted a couple examples from a dance class I did on Saturdays over a fairly long period. I found I really disliked the standard work, but I liked the spec work. I'd do that again if the opportunity arose. At this point I'm proud to be an amateur, in the real meaning of the word.

I think you're right that free time, which I have lots of now that I'm really retired from both the Air Force and from software engineering, is important. But not always. I think of people like Elliott Erwitt who didn't have Cartier-Bresson's advantage of a family fortune. He was a professional on the jobs he did as a professional, but when the daily work was done he picked up his Leica and became an amateur in the finest sense of the word.

I guess the reason I'm posting this is that I'd love to see us stop the kind of crap I see all the time in magazines like Pop Photography: "Join our workshop -- mentored by the pros." What BS. In practically every issue of that magazine I see the "pros" take a reasonably good photograph, crop, dodge, burn, and otherwise degrade it. Sometimes they're right about the changes, but rarely. It's time to stop calling novice photographers "amateurs," and start calling them what they are: "novices." The "pros" in magazines like Pop Photography are all about equipment. As Rob pointed out, equipment completely misses the point.

Absolutly Russ!

Being a pro does not garantee good imagery at all. As you pointed, in its strictly definition it is about income source.Taking the same concept, the amateur photographers produce stunning images, we can see that easily in internet. The lack of limitations (client needs etc...) is an advantage in order to express artistically, simplifying we could talk about more freedom.

But that's also where good pros differ, in the hability to be creative, having a personal style and producing stunning images being limitated by factors the amateur does not have.Taking a paralel, when I finished to study arquitecture before joining fine arts, we (the students) where all really creatives, imaginative and enthousiastic. In the summer I joined my first paid job in an arquitect agency and to my surprise, I realised that what we learned had to be "de-learned" because the professional activity had many limitations in practise.Reaching the creativity into those professional realities is IMO where the differences stand, not specially in the image quality.

Or, taking another example that will resonate with your life: I have been a private plane pilot in the 90's for some years (only VFR). I felt passion about flying. But can you see the difference between flying the Sabre on assignment and flying the Cesna for pleasure? Of course you can. Yes, it is flying anyway, basic rules are the very same but the context is totally different. Skills required are indeed different even if a common knowledge of flying is evident. In the french army, I was in a military base call Mont-de Marsan (air Force base number 118). It is a sort of elite unit where they test the Mirage weapons. Well, at that time I could recognized any shade of a russian plane and put the name on it, wich gave me a sort of "fame" into the reconnaissance squadron , to my surprise, none of these top pilots where able to do so...They where the pros, I was the amateur teaching them the russian plane shades??!

Now, my life gives me a very good oportunity to see those differences and that is why I understand Rob. I have been an amateur for many years, and now I'm also an assistant of a top spanish fashion photographer, and beleive me I can observe the differences from the field.You are right Russ, image is not, and should be not, where the basic differences between a pro an amateur are. Although the kind of imagery that do some pros is simply not possible for an amateur because of the budget involved behind (few photoshop retouching by the way). The differences are in other lands than creativity itself. It is about the hability to lead a team, to understand client needs...things like that.

A point that James Russell and Rob have stressed many many times here and that I confirm, is the very little interest, if not lack of knowledge (if we can call that knowledge) in some cases, about camera gear by those pros. Yesterday I took a coffee with 2 top printers that work with 300m2 sizes prints on aluminium for cities projects. These people are on the very top knowledge about printing and one only has a Canon G9 has a main camera. Well, we where talking about resolution, camera gear, files etc...really, they told me this: you can start with any 5MP camera, as long as you know how to do...One has heard about the Olympus PR1 he told me...I said "what?, are you talking about thye EP1?".

Anybody in a forum like this one would laugh if you write "what about the new Pentax 564 ?" But some of the very best pros I met so far would probably make the mistake, so did the top army pilots about russian planes.

"And Palma is too full of gypsies and pickpockets to encourage an old geezer like me to risk it. The damn insurance company only covers stuff if stolen from home! I have started to leave my watch at home whenever I have to go to the big smoke."

I really think this is an offensive statement, particulary in the current anti-Roma climate in Europe. I'm disappointed that no-one else has picked up on this.

I must say that in this interesting thread now, I reached the limits of my english and I don't catch anything more you guys are saying.It looks like a spy secret code, something like that.

What are you talking about the "anti-Roma climate in Europe" and the "insurance companies?

Fred, my friend, sorry, can't help you with this one. If I have to explain a joke (or sarcasm, as in this case), it would not be a joke. Either you get it, or you do not. If you do not, it is not necessarily your fault, it could be me telling a bad joke just as well. But I think (hope) Rob got it.

"And **** is too full of **** and pickpockets to encourage an old geezer like me to risk it. The damn insurance company only covers stuff if stolen from home! I have started to leave my watch at home whenever I have to go to the big smoke."

I really think this is an offensive statement, particulary in the current anti-Roma climate in Europe. I'm disappointed that no-one else has picked up on this.

Could be said of any big city. Rob identified the local problem. Now in fill the **** with the local variants with regards to a big city near you. I notice that you are resident in London. How about skinheads, hoodies, gangs etc etc.